Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

Members
  • Content Count

    2,686
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Don Mansfield

  1. joel, That's not how definitions work. A word or term used in one clause does not necessarily have the same meaning when used in a different clause because the two clauses are in the same contract. You are ignoring the clear rule in FAR 1.108(a): Thus, the definition of "bond" at FAR 28.001 only applies to FAR part 28. If a contract contains the Definitions clause, then that definition extends to clauses prescribed in FAR part 28. FAR 52.232-5 is not prescribed in FAR part 28, so there's no basis for your assertion that the definition of "bond" at FAR 28.001 applies to FAR 52
  2. I think you should take a closer look at LBM. The issue was that the requirement was subject to the rule-of-two analysis because it wasn't within the scope of the competition of the IDIQ contract it was being transferred to. That's still good law. We discussed LBM here (you participated): Delex was the case where the GAO said the rule-of-two applied to task and delivery orders. That's no longer good law due to subsequent statutory and regulatory changes @ji20874 discussed in his post.
  3. It would only seem fair that there would also be a Renegotiation Board to prevent contractors from suffering "excess losses".
  4. Why should "contractor" be interpreted as "prime contractor" in the FAR definition of "bond"?
  5. FAR 1.108(a): The definition of "bond" at FAR 28.001 does not apply to FAR 52.232-5. That is a matter of fact.
  6. Flag on the play. Misapplication of a definition. The definition of "bond" at FAR 28.001 does not apply to the word "bond" as used in FAR 52.232-5. FAR 28.001 begins with "as used in this part--".
  7. Wouldn't you have to order in the fiscal year that the funds were available for obligation to avoid a bona fide need rule violation?
  8. @here_2_help & @Retreadfed, I think you are talking past each other. Should the contract be modified to reflect a new completion date? Yes. If the CO doesn't modify the contract and the contractor keeps working, will they keep getting paid? Probably, yes (as long as DCAA is reviewing the invoices).
  9. There is a clear policy preference in the FAR for incorporation by reference. FAR 52.102(a) states:
  10. https://www.vitalsmarts.com/crucial-conversations-training/
  11. Better, but you are still requesting information with little predictive value. Unless you are asking for promises, an offeror's statements about the future will be written to show them in the best possible light--as opposed to providing the most accurate depiction of the future. This is improved crawling.
  12. Yes, but the contracting officer doesn't have Santa Claus authority--that resides in the agency head. 🎅 COs are just elves. 🧝‍♂️🧝‍♂️🧝‍♂️
  13. Terms can be renegotiated under Government contracts, too. Remember when DoD gave a generous price increase and advance payments to the Anthrax vaccine contractor that was failing?
  14. joel, No offense intended. I have no problem with what you wrote. I think ji is responding as a contracting officer should when being asked for a price increase on a FFP contract. The first question should be "what entitles the contractor to a price increase?" Under the standard FAR clauses, severe weather alone does not. End of story. If the contractor wants a price increase, they need to present a different argument. Cold hard logic.
  15. Did you read FAR 31.205-7? Specifically, paragraph (c)?
  16. One improvement: the rule would not apply to "nontraditional defense contractors (NDCs)". NDCs would be defined as contractors who are not currently performing or who have not performed within the last year a CAS-covered contract or subcontract.
  17. Clause Logic Service relies on human interaction with the program. I want something that can scan an acquisition plan and spit out all required FAR/DFARS provisions and clauses. Here's a tool that scans contracts and spits out a list of required flowdowns: https://farclause.com/ That's what I'm talking about. We're probably not that far from a tool that scans RFPs and can spit out a winning "technical/management approach".
  18. @MBrown, I agree. Contracting officers shouldn't be including clauses in contracts that are clearly inapplicable and claiming they are "self-deleting". However, some clauses are written to become inapplicable if certain conditions are met or an exception applies (what some call "self-deleting"). For example, FAR 52.219-9(a): "This clause does not apply to small business concerns." FAR 52.222-20 preamble: "If this contract is for the manufacture or furnishing of materials, supplies, articles or equipment in an amount that exceeds or may exceed $15,000, and is subject to 41 U.S.C.
  19. I think this is a thoughtful question for a beginner. First, the rule that you would have to consider is whether incorporating a clause that isn't required would be a deviation from the FAR. See FAR subpart 1.4 for coverage of deviations. Second, I think that including as many clauses as possible so that you don't have to do a modification in the future is a good example of local optimization at the expense of system optimization. Those clauses impose administrative burdens on contractors and increase costs. These costs are passed on to the Government in the form of higher prices/cos
  20. What do you mean by "self-deleting"? Do you mean a clause that is included in a contract that may turn out to be inapplicable?
×
×
  • Create New...